Maritime emissions specialist, EmissionLink, has called for a dedicated proportion of EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) revenues to be invested in onboard carbon capture trials and supporting port infrastructure, warning that the technology risks remaining commercially unviable without targeted financial support.

Philippos Ioulianou, Managing Director of EmissionLink, believes Europe has an opportunity to accelerate the development of maritime carbon capture by directing emissions trading revenues towards full-scale demonstrations that establish whether the technology can deliver verified emissions reductions at an economically sustainable cost.

The call comes as the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) moves to develop interim safety guidelines for onboard carbon capture systems. While welcoming the initiative, Mr Ioulianou argues that regulatory progress must be matched by investment in the infrastructure, emissions accounting mechanisms and commercial arrangements necessary to make the technology attractive to shipowners.

“Developing safety guidelines is an important step, but regulation alone will not persuade shipowners to invest in carbon capture,” said Mr Ioulianou. “Owners need a credible business case, backed by verified emissions savings, workable carbon disposal arrangements and a clear understanding of the financial benefits.

“Europe is well positioned to lead this work. Allocating a proportion of EU ETS revenues to onboard trials and port reception infrastructure would help establish whether carbon capture can become a commercially viable decarbonisation solution for shipping.”

EmissionLink is advocating investment in demonstration projects that assess every stage of the carbon capture process, from onboard collection and storage to offloading, transportation and permanent storage or approved use. Such projects should operate against clearly defined performance criteria and generate independently verifiable emissions data that can inform regulatory development and future investment decisions. However, EmissionLink cautions that onboard carbon capture is unlikely to be a practical solution for every vessel.

Ships operating on fixed and predictable routes offer the most promising early applications, as operators can plan carbon storage capacity and establish offloading arrangements at designated ports. For vessels trading on irregular routes or spot charters, the logistical challenges are considerably greater, particularly where carbon reception facilities and onward transportation arrangements are unavailable.

Technical suitability will also depend on factors including vessel age, available space, additional power demand and remaining commercial life. Ship owners and charterers must also resolve contractual questions surrounding additional fuel consumption, offloading delays and the allocation of regulatory compliance benefits.

“Installing carbon capture equipment introduces responsibilities that extend well beyond the initial investment,” Mr Ioulianou explained. “Shipowners must consider the operational impact, the demands placed on crews and who ultimately bears the additional costs. These questions need answering before the technology can be adopted with confidence.”

A further concern is the need for greater clarity around emissions accounting and regulatory recognition. While the EU ETS recognises qualifying carbon capture and permanent geological storage or chemical binding, practical monitoring, reporting and verification arrangements for maritime carbon capture remain underdeveloped.

Mr Ioulianou also warned that shipowners should not assume carbon capture benefits recognised under the EU ETS will automatically provide equivalent compliance advantages under FuelEU Maritime, which regulates the greenhouse gas intensity of energy used onboard ships rather than absolute emissions.

“Capturing carbon is not necessarily the same as delivering a verified reduction in emissions,” he said. “Shipowners need certainty over how those savings will be measured, independently verified and recognised under the relevant regulations. Without that clarity, it becomes extremely difficult to justify the capital and operating expenditure.”

EmissionLink believes the period during which the IMO develops its safety framework should be used to advance commercial trials, emissions verification procedures and port infrastructure in parallel.